Friday, October 5, 2012

My heart goes out to the media and Obama's demoralized supporters.They are all grasping for some kind of
explanation for Obama’s implosion on Wednesday night. So he is an intellectual, an introvert, a writer-type.
He is so cerebral that he doesn’t possess
the degraded skill set of a competent debater.He was preoccupied with the condition of the economy, and about troubling global events. He is so basically good and truthful that he was completely overwhelmed
by the lies and duplicity of Romney.

On the other hand, if we were to employ Occam’s Razor, we could easily conclude
that Obama sucked on Wednesday night.

But of course, that is engaging in the “low-effort thinking of conservatives,” like
a ballerina relinquishing her dignity at the Inaugural Nebraska Hoedown of the
Low-Sloping Foreheads (with due acknowledgements to David “Crackpipe” Carr).

Let’s back up a bit.Recall 2004, when
Obama gave the keynote address at the DNC convention.That was the coming out of the golden child, the
moment that we all knew he would be our nation’s first black president.He was anointed.Thus commenced the media construction of
Obama.

I’d call it the Obama Myth, but the word “myth” usually conveys something noble,
and contains a truth (if embellished).America, for example, has its national myths –
we are all familiar with Horatio
Greenough’s sculpture of a toga-clad George Washington as Zeus on Olympus.It tells
a story about who we are, and what is important to us.It may be fanciful, but it is a salutatory type
of fancy.

With President Obama I see fancy, but of a pernicious type.It is a perversion of myth, a fiction foisted
on us by a muddle-headed media and their accomplices on the academic Left. This is where propaganda is employed when the
creation of a useful and noble myth is impossible to justify.

It is the type of perversion of the national story, a forced national myth,
that we see in Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.We saw it in the mid-twentieth century in the USSR and Nazi Germany.

A lot of adjectives could be applied to the man, but “introverted” has never
been one of them. A common claim is that Obama is an “intellectual.” Tell me
what exactly it is that he has contributed to any field of inquiry?I am aware of no instance when he has
competed successfully (if at all) in the arena of ideas. I have heard of no groundbreaking or seminal contributions
to legal theory or political philosophy produced by Obama.His time as editor of the Harvard Law Review is curiously bereft of any actual literary output. He wrote two memoirs, I believe, but these
are no more than the obligatory bathroom reading that anyone who aspires to
high office is expected to produce.

He has the weight of the country’s problems on his shoulders?If indeed he has been lately burdened by the
state of the nation, he had a funny way of showing it.In the period immediately following the assassination
of our diplomats at Benghazi,
the President jaunted off to party with Jay-Z and Beyonce, and made media appearances hosted by David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, the Ladies of the View, and DJ Pimp with a Limp.

If we are to locate Obama even remotely within the orbit of intellectual life, perhaps
we should place him alongside Warhol. Maybe
we just don’t get him.By making the rounds of the pop-culture
circuit, he has issued a sardonic rebuke of realpolitik
that is so profound that it will take decades, even centuries for historians
and cultural critics to unpack. He is the
performance artist president – in fact presiding over the political equivalent
of a happening.Yeah, baby. Dig it.

But if we re-elect him, it will be worse than Warhol.It will be out of pity.Just as Hunter Thompson was kept frozen in
amber behind the International Affairs Desk at Rolling Stone long past his sell-date, so a re-elected Obama will remain
a living relic, a curiosity representing that early 21st –century perversion
of a myth that we once knew as Hope and Change.

Our real hope now, as the Oracle of Wasilla prophesied in the year 2008 C.E., is
that those styro-doric columns that have flanked Barack Obama these past four
years will finally be shrink-wrapped for permanent storage.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Warren is being willfully duplicitous. She knows perfectly well what
"corporate personhood" is all about. Her background is bankruptcy and
commercial law. Corporations are treated as "persons" when it comes to
contracts and legal proceedings.

Her thing about people "living and loving and dancing" is nice and all,
but she knows it's nonsense. In a court of law, or in negotiating a
contract, the fact that someone "lives and loves and dances" is
irrelevant.

Are Liberals suggesting that rights of incorporation and rights to negotiate contracts should be abolished?

That is silly. All of us have the right to incorporate and make
contracts. It is a necessary protection and falls under the Rule of
Law.

There is a small corporation in my neighborhood - the
water company. Some time ago, the residents were fed up with
mismanagement by the town, so they formed their own corporation to
manage their water and sewers.

Are you telling us that these
people did not have the right to incorporate? or that once incorporated,
their company would have no legal rights or standing? That's madness.
No one would have agreed to the incorporation if liabilities were to
fall on any of the individuals involved.

The corporation is
thus set aside from the individuals, so that responsibility for any
damages or liabilities would fall on the corporation as an entity, and
not on the personal assets of the owners.

This is nothing new.
It goes back to English Common Law. Contrary to what Liberals
believe, the Citizens United case did NOT determine that "corporations
are people." It was already a fact prior to that case.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Sandra Fluke delivered her speech to the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night. Our young(ish) public interest law scholar certainly distinguished herself on that crowded stage in Charlotte.

Counselor Fluke's in-your-face reality: The decision we make in November will determine the Fate of the Republic. Future One, or Future Two? There are no alternatives:

1) A dystopian, horrific world in which the majority of insurance plans cover birth control.

2) The promise of an enlightened tomorrow in which the vast majority of insurance plans cover birth control.

Let it not be written of us:

All for the want of C-O-C-P An Empire thus fell,And is lost to hist'ry.

Has Team Romney no shame? Do they not realize that bullying can kill? In any debate or discussion, diabolical Ryan whips out all his big
impressive-sounding numbers and computations and policy/wonky stuff, and
all manner of geeky policy analysis. It's a bullying tactic, folks - don't take the bait.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Not that we needed any more examples, but Sandra Fluke exemplifies the insipidity and infantilism of the Left in general.

To begin with, Ms. Fluke is active in an organization known as Law Students for Reproductive Justice. Her hearers accept this without flinching. Why?

The Left loves terms like “social justice,” “economic justice,” “environmental justice,” and now “reproductive justice.” We point out that there is either justice or there isn’t. Any adjective placed in front of the word perverts its meaning, and such a modification is in effect pulling down a corner of Lady Justice’s blindfold or placing one of Mrs. Pelosi's paws on her scales.

Notwithstanding (or due to) the fact that Fluke is a third-year student at Georgetown Law, we are not surprised that she does not grasp this basic legal concept. Her bio states that her JD is “expected” in 2012. She expects too much, but will receive it nonetheless.

Hers is no great mind. Her breathless acceptance of such perversions of the term “justice” is no different than what would be accepted by a first-year undeclared college major, or a seventh-grader in the throes of menarche who soon becomes a Birkenstock-shod 16-year-old who loudly denounces the materialism and suburban sensibilities of her parents.

Fluke then enters that nightmarish terrain that Liberals are so comfortable with, the Land of the Naked Anecdote: “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.”

Yes, you've seen them - those gals wandering around with that thousand-yard stare, wailing inconsolably beati qui lugent, all for want ofcontraceptive coverage in their student health plans: They are “suffering emotional burdens… [with] critical health care needs… embarrassed and just powerless… [experiencing] very dire consequences...” Not just dire, mind you - very dire.

“These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people,” such as Fluke’s “friend” who suffers from polycystic ovarian syndrome, the tale of whom was not nearly as funny as Louise’s Slaughter’s story about the poor woman who “had to wear her dead sister’s teeth.” But that was due only to Sandra's lack of detail about her friend's acne condition and whether or not her friend experiences the very dire consequence of requiring a regular back-waxing appointment, which we surmise is certainly not covered by insurance. Of course there was the obligatory begging-of-the question phrase referencing “the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.”

Fluke said she was there to “share their voices” – quite nice of her, but it is likely that none of these zombie-like creatures were even aware they were facing “dire consequences” until Fluke came along with promises of reproductive redemption. We suppose it was Mrs. Pelosi and her airborne simians who plucked Ms. Fluke off of her assigned cornice and thrust her aloft to her present heights of renown, to show the way for her still-unregenerate sisters.

We say none of this to (further) denigrate Ms. Fluke. Her denigration has already come at the hands of Left. She is being used, put forward as a “bright, articulate, and courageous young woman,” and will be promptly dispatched ala Cindy Sheehan and Gabby Giffords et al. So far, Giffords has been the only one we know of who had the good sense to bail.

Above all, Fluke is serious, and seriously devoted to this serious issue. She appeals to other serious-minded types, most commonly found among the audiences of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Rachel Maddow. There is neither time nor place for the decidedly unserious Rush Limbaughs of the world.

Alas, this seriousness is an ugly changeling for actual intellect. As one wag has noted: “Seriousness is stupidity sent to college.”

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) - [O]n Saturday, all-women [sic] Barnard College said Obama would speak at the school's graduation ceremony in May.

President Obama is too clever by half. Commencement is two months away, and by then the dust will have settled from the Limbaugh/Fluke/Pelosi-and-her-Flying Monkeys drama.

Also, the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on the constitutionality of P-PACA at the end of this month - which is really the heart of the whole matter. No matter what the court rules (or fails to rule), Mr. Obama will look like he's beating a dead nag.

What he really needs is a good ol' bogus racial incident, ala the Dr. Gates/Cambridge Police circus. I'm sure one is in the works already (slated as an October Surprise), but now TeamObama may have to move the date up a few months to, say, April or so.